User:JanisWilton3422

A Jamaican rapist has escaped deportation because his criminal record in Britain means he 'might not be eligible for witness protection' in his home country.

The convicted sex động vật attacker entered the program on the Caribbean island as a child because his mother testified about a murder committed by a gang leader.

He later relocated to the UK, where he was sent to prison multiple times for rape, unlawful wounding and burglaries.

And shockingly despite his awful offending the press are banned from naming him- even though a judge has allowed him to remain in Britain. 

The Home Office tried to deported because of these convictions but he appealed on the grounds that this criminal record would mean he would not be allowed back into witness protection in Jamaica.

His argument was initially dismissed but has now been allowed by an immigration tribunal on human rights grounds meaning the criminal will be allowed to remain in the UK.

The Upper-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber at Field House in London, was told the sex offender entered the UK in 2001 as a visitor.

As a child his mother was a police informant for many years and aided the conviction and imprisonment of a gang leader for murder as the prosecution's main witness during the trial.




Deportation Flight: The Jamaican rapist avoided being sent back despite his lengthy record




Read More


EXCLUSIVE

Paedophile who raped a schoolgirl, 15, but cannot be deported from the UK back to Albania brags 'I've got no worries here'


As a result of this the family entered Jamaican witness protection in 1997, the year he turned 13, and two years later his mother relocated to the UK.

He stayed in Jamaica and was moved around several times by the witness protection team.

After entering the UK in 2001, the criminal was initially granted leave to remain as a student and then became a visa overstayer.

He applied for asylum in 2006 but whilst his application was pending he was convicted of unlawful wounding and burglaries. 

He was sentenced to four years and eight months' imprisonment in 2009. Four years later he was jailed for nine years for rape.

The Home Office first issued a deportation order in 2019 on the basis that his convictions excluded him from refugee protection.

The Jamaican appealed this at a First-tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal hearing on the grounds he would be 'at risk' if he was sent back.

Prior to the hearing, the Home Office contacted the Jamaican Ministry of National Security to confirm if the criminal had been in the witness protection program.




The Home Office argued he should have been removed because of his heinous crimes 




Read More

Foreign rapist, 41, cannot be deported from the UK... because he's bisexual


Officials in Jamaica said the likelihood of harm to him would be 'high' and there was also a risk of 'psychological trauma' if he returned.

The Ministry added there was 'no guarantee' he would be accepted back into witness protection.

His 2023 appeal was dismissed by the First-tier tribunal on the basis there was a 'real possibility' he would be allowed back into witness protection and not at risk as a result.

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Guidance states that Jamaican authorities are able to provide 'effective protection' but only to those 'reasonably likely' to be admitted to witness protection.

The Jamaican appealed the decision on the grounds that the tribunal had 'failed to consider' his criminal record and mental health issues when deciding the likelihood he would be accepted into witness protection and that the programme had failed to keep him safe as a child.

At the latest appeal, the Upper-tier Tribunal also had to decide if the lower court had used too high a standard of proof as in cases involving the prohibition of torture the risk of harm can be as low as 10 per cent to be allowed.

Upper Tribunal Judge Leonie Hirst concluded that the standard of proof had been misapplied and allowed the appeal on the basis there was a 'real risk' the rapist would not be allowed back into witness protection.

Judge Leonie Hirst said: 'It was not in dispute that there was a real risk of harm to him from non-state actors, namely criminal gangs.

'Nor was it in dispute that the Jamaican witness protection programme would, if he was admitted to it, provide protection.' 

However, she concluded the question for the courts to decides was whether there was a risk that the rapist would not be admitted to the witness protection program. 

She found that threat existed, remarking: 'Given it was common ground that there was a real risk he would not be admitted onto the witness protection programme on return, the appeal would fall to be allowed.'

His appeal was allowed.